He and his former successor as leader of the CAP, well known Communist Connie Fogal-Rankin, would like the Canadian parliament to have a “democratic mandate” from the Canadian people for the North American Union. (The BNA Act of 1867 prohibits North American Union, so these cons have introduced the forbidden as an “option”.)

However, the deeper truth behind the Canadian Action Party is truly bizarre. 2 And there is no way to spoof it for you to celebrate Christmas-New Year’s 2016-2017, other than to expose the truth.

Hellyer’s interviewer, Sophie Shevardnadze, evidently perplexed, can only reply, “Uhum” to the news that a flying saucer had hovered over Bethlehem to announce the birth of Jesus.

But that mythic scenario fits precisely into the intergalactic-theocratic-Urantia cult behind Paul Hellyer’s Canadian Action Party.

Paul Hellyer: “I think the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

When Hellyer says, “one of God’s flying saucers”, he is referring to the Book of Urantia peddled by Canadian Action Party president Paul Kemp.

In its internal, non-public culture, Hellyer’s Canadian Action Party supports a one-world government, a globalist religion (Urantia), alien-human hybridization, and membership of the Earth (real name, Urantia) in an interplanetary federation. The scam is that Earth must have world government in order to be admitted to the federation.

Add to this an intergalactic Jesus incarnated throughout the infinite alien-populated worlds advanced as “fact” and “truth” in Paul Kemp’s presentation of the Urantia Book, and you start to see why Hellyer would announce: “the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group are presumed by Urantia “believers” at CAP to have received “alien contact”. This is why these sainted organizations, run by the world’s worst Evilarchy, are motivated to form a one-world government: so that Earth can join “galactic society”.

One such believer is Paul Kemp’s friend, retired U.S. Air Force Lt.-Col Don Ware, who admits to channeling telepathic aliens. Ware is said to have claimed:

“In 1989, after studying and learning more about the non-physical aspects of the universe, I was used by a higher intelligence to send a message to the generals at Eglin Air Force Base.”

Also, says Ware:

“I accept the idea that intelligent life is abundant throughout the universe, in both incarnate and discarnate forms”

“the normal means of communication by higher intelligence is telepathic”

“Millions of Americans are participating in a hybridization program with short beings from Zeta Reticula.”

“The main reason alien liaison is increasing now is because our planet is being transformed to support a new world order.”

Notice anything familiar yet?

Ware continues:

“The new order is destined to support a learning process that is one step beyond the human experience of free-will choices.”

A world Marxist dictatorship is “one step beyond” “free-will choices”. Coincidence? Give up your free will for the greater good of the intergalactic collective! Just what we need! Space aliens who are Marxists! Perhaps Karl channeled the Manifesto from telepathic Zeta Reticulans?

“… the new world order can become what Jesus described as heaven on Earth.”

The Warburg-financed Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, viewed by many as the founding father of the European Union (first chunk of the world-government system laid in place) said in his 1925 book, Practical Idealism:

Through the ages Jewry has remained faithful to the theocratic idea of the identification of politics and ethics: Christianity and Socialism are both attempts to create an earthly paradise. [lit.: a State of God] Now, the Kemp web sites prominently feature the Star of David and the flag of Israel in the Urantia scheme for an intergalactic federation of world-governments.

Don Ware continues:

“I think the Bilderburgers [sic], the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations in America is influenced by alien liaison.”

“I think many members of these groups recognize that having a government that can speak for all of the people of the world is a prerequisite to joining a galactic society.”

“Economies are coalescing into three major economic blocks, and advanced communication and transportation systems are allowing a great inter-mingling of societies.”

The Urantia cult is a spinoff from the 7th-Day Adventists who themselves spun off David Koresh’s Messianic Branch Davidians. The Branch Davidians met their tragic end in a bloody FBI siege in 1993 at Waco, Texas. (It is alleged that Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered the massacre.)

Waco (wacko?) is also the home of the alleged Bush-Fox-Martin signature in 2005 of a non-released document behind the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” of North America, to complete a regional union (“regionalism is Communism”, says Charlotte Iserbyt of NewsWithViews) on the pretext of 9/11.

The “Urantia Book” behind the cult is a faked “religious” document “channeled” by a member of the Kellogg family. The same family produced at least four members of the ominous “Skull & Bones” secret society.

The object of the Urantia cult is world government for the Earth (Urantia), where the Earth is just one among an infinite number of planets in an interstellar federation of planets, each with its own world government. The aliens inhabiting these “worlds of space” are all portrayed as “higher intelligences”, “advanced beings” whom we Urantians ought to emulate.

At the center of the whole federation is God on the middle planet. Which explains the reference of Paul Hellyer in the news clip to “one of God’s flying saucers”. This is pure Urantia Book. (And no, we don’t know yet if God is David Rockefeller.)

So the purpose for pretending to “channel” a 2000-page book to kick-start a new religion might well be sinister.

And, sinister it is when you discover the passages in the Urantia Book (the cult’s “Bible”) demanding a one-world government.

Now, world government is what the Canadian Action Party claims to oppose when addressing the public. But, one-world government is a religious tenet of the UFO cult manically pursued behind the scenes by Canadian Action Party founder Paul Hellyer and his conspiratorial Executive members.

The Canadian Action Party’s president, Paul Kemp, literally preaches Urantia on and off-line (see his Facebook page and his collection of “other worlds of space” web sites linked below). According to Kemp, the Urantia Book says:

134:6.4 Another world war will teach the so-called sovereign nations to form some sort of federation, thus creating the machinery for preventing small wars, wars between the lesser nations.

The malign intelligence behind the words “will teach” in that passage is too startling to be ignored. In the past few years, self-styled analyst Joel M. Skousen, nephew of W. Cleon Skousen who published The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist, has been warning that “they are planning a war for us”.

Says Skousen to Alex Jones, in the advertising film for his book Strategic Relocation (drumming up business for Skousen’s profession installing hi-tech nuclear bomb shelters for the mobile rich):

“Well, part of it is that they don’t understand the nature of the conspiracy. They don’t understand that there is a great powerful force not only to take down Liberty, which is what their agenda is, but to make sure that they don’t get the blame for it.

So, they are going to use — they blame it on anyone, they blame it on the free market, they blame it on “business cycle”. It’s not the business cycle, it’s the monetary cycle created by the Fed.

And ultimately, these people are going to escape blame, because they are planning a war for us. A third world-war. A nuclear war. Which in fact will wipe out a great deal of the financial centers and will let them to walk away and say, ‘It wasn’t our fault’.”

“The Fed” is the U.S. Federal Reserve bank, which is not a national bank but a private bank. The Federal Reserve is composed of all the same banking interests behind the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) which for over a century has engineered all the major wars, including World Wars I and II, financing both sides.

The goal of this Bankers’ protection racket was to push the free nations of the world to the bargaining table, there to create a world government. With the creation of the United Nations Organization in 1945, stage one has been accomplished. The table has been laid. Stage two is underway, and Hellyer and Company are playing “the alien card“.

We therefore have currently playing out before us, an apparently Marxist, Bankster-friendly Urantia UFO cult, hybridized with Christianity and with Zionist forces. For Paul Kemp’s Urantia web sites all use the Star of David and the flags of Israel and the United Nations as twin pennons of the desired World Order over Earth in an interplanetary federation.

All are pushing naive people to accept, on religious faith, the spirituality and “goodness” of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, his Marxist Council on Foreign Relations, and his pro-Communist Bilderbergers.

Enameled onto this religious tenet is the requirement that Urantia believers agree that national sovereignty is poisonous, and the cause of wars.

National sovereignty is not the cause of wars; the Bankers are the cause of wars. Wars could not be fought without financing. It is well known that the Rothschild bankers have financed both sides in most European wars for hundreds of years. They financed both sides in the last Napoleonic War, and capitalized on their advance knowledge of Napoleon’s defeat, to trick the British markets into a panic so the Rothschilds could buy up stock at rock-bottom prices. As a consequence, it is hotly rumored, the Rothschilds thus acquired control of the Bank of England.

Another passage from the Urantia Book, as posted by the CAP’s Paul Kemp, gives a very strong hint as to who is really behind this phony religion and UFO cult:

134:6.11 Under global government the national groups will be afforded a real opportunity to realize and enjoy the personal liberties of genuine democracy. The fallacy of self-determination will be ended. With global regulation of money and trade will come the new era of world-wide peace. Soon may a global language evolve, and there will be at least some hope of sometime having a global religion — or religions with a global viewpoint.

“Why will you not understand the psychology that is so important in the national question and which, if the slightest coercion is applied, besmirches, soils, nullifies the undoubtedly progressive importance of centralisation, large states and a uniform language?”

Lenin continues, linking his view of how a global language must “evolve” spurred by the development of a “capitalist” economy:

“But the economy is still more important than psychology: in Russia we already have a capitalist economy, which makes the Russian language essential. But you have no faith in the power of the economy and want to prop it up with the crutches of the rotten police regime.”

Apparently, Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party are propping up Marxist world government on the crutches of a phony UFO cult.

On the topic of “democracy”, Lenin had this to say in his September 7th, 1913 article in Pravda (page 357, Vol. 19, Collected Works), although when Lenin says “alien” he probably doesn’t have in mind the inducement to world government promoted by Hellyer.

“Working-class democracy counterposes to the nationalist wrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unity and complete solidarity of workers of all nationalities in all working-class organisations — trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all others — in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only this type of unity and solidarity can uphold democracy and defend the interests of the workers against capital — which is already international and is becoming more so — and promote the development of mankind towards a new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.”

But what of the Canadian Action Party’s “global religion”! Have the Marxists conceded the value of blending the behavioral goals of their materialist religion with the enforcement function of religion over “primitive instincts” to free choice and self-determination?

Perhaps Maurice Strong will emerge with a more complex version of Urantia, itself, linked to phony man-made “climate change”?

Urantia is pretty deadly stuff; and it’s targeted to securing compliance with a Bankster-engineered overthrow of Western Civilization by a naive element of that same population.

Basically, when the views that the Evilarchy wants people to hold become tenets held on faith; they are no longer open to challenge in the real world outside that hypnotically wobbling orb of the imaginary universe created by Urantia around its advocates.

The Urantia cult as promoted by Heller converts the Banksters and their Marxist Council on Foreign Relations, their Trilateral Commission and extended networks into collaborators of Christ to create a world government “paradise” on Earth, as part of an intergalactic federation where it is possible to voyage to the middle planet and meet God; (or perhaps David Rockefeller).

Bloggers including Tim Boucher have questioned whether Hellyer has lost his mind. Indeed, I believe there is calculated method to Hellyer’s apparent madness. His “far out” Urantia cult enables a real political power grab advanced through mind control exerted over a fringe element with limited capacities for critical judgment.

As for me, I’m betting that “God” will turn out to be a trans-humanized, brain-transplanted Evelyn de Rothschild, ensconced upon the Divine Hijacked British Throne at the center of Kemp’s wacky Universe.

I hope the galactic truth about Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party has set you free!

1 In 2003, Paul Hellyer tried to merge the Canadian Action Party with the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). The NDP has always been a full member of the Socialist International (SI), whose platform is world government (Oslo Declaration, 1962). The fact that Hellyer tried to merge the CAP with the NDP proves that Hellyer is in favor of world government.

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”

2 Back around 2009, a concerned member of the Canadian Action Party who was inside and able to observe the “pro” world government activity of the CAP and its Urantia UFO cult, began to leak documents on these hypocrites who were pretending to save Canada’s “sovereignty”.

This article may be a little bit “jagged” because it has been written and rewritten since 2012, and finally published now. It was first drafted when Justin Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership. It was revised when he began to campaign for the last federal election. And it’s been touched up again. Very hard to get a smooth feel to it, writing it in coffee shops on the free wifi, surrounded by dozens of other gabbing customers. So tonight, I’m finishing it. It’s as done as it’s going to get for now. I hope you get something out of it, nonetheless. (I will fix the shifted html tables another day…. God willing. That’s one of the horrors of WordPress: not compatible with other basic editing languages. And though the tables all work in WordPress installed in xampp, they don’t work here online, who knows why.)

The Real Justin Trudeau: Red Like His Daddy

Please notice that Justin Trudeau, while running for his father’s former job, supports referendums for Quebec to “secede”. However, as we know from the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (PQ) (in English exclusively at this web site, see the sidebar for the free download), Quebec is not becoming “sovereign”, it is becoming Communist. The referendums of 1980 and 1995 were precisely to get this done. See in particular my feature post, Singing Tomorrows, to make this clear.

The referendums are a front and a grave deception in which Trudeau Junior, from a family of Castro-worshippers, is a willing shill:

He also brought to the forefront the position of his New Democratic adversary to the effect that a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) would be recognized by Ottawa in case of a refrendum on sovereignty by affirming that it would only seek to win “political points”.

“Mr. Mulcair has chosen to return to this issue to make political gains in Quebec,” affirmed Mr. [Justin] Trudeau. The reality is that Quebecers need a new premier who is aware of the reality of the challenges and [capable of] pulling the whole country together.”

During the first leaders’ debate, last week, the question of referendum clarity led to a biting exchange between Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau, the latter accusing his rival of leading a party which threatens national unity because of his position.

By “national unity” is meant the complete restructuring of all of Canada on the model of the EUSSR after a “Yes” in Red-led Quebec.

The fact that Justin Trudeau supports the referendum deception proves that he is as much a Communist as his father was. In fact, his father’s becoming Prime Minister and the Parti Québécois being created, were both part of a single scheme hatched by Pierre Trudeau and other federal cabinet ministers from Quebec in the “Liberal” government of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson in 1967. (Search for Pearson’s FBI file at this web site.) Pierre Trudeau’s end of the scheme was to “negotiate” the restructuring of Canada with his Communist friend René Lévesque, who set up the PQ solely on the orders of Pierre Trudeau and the “secret committee” of Power Corporation. The two elements — another prime minister under full control, and a Communist party masked as merely “separatist” were created as a single mechanism to overthrow Canada.

Subscribe to this blog and you will soon learn how veiled Communist and co-founder of the Communist PQ, Guy Bertrand, now plans to force the “secession” of Quebec directly into structural Communism (i.e., Moscow-style expanded and consolidated metropolitan REGIONS (to replace the nation-state) as described by Communist sociologist Morris Zeitlin in “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” an article in the November 8, 1975 issue of the Daily World, the journal of the Communist Party of the USA.)

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage[/caption]On Tuesday night, October 12th, 2012 in the Liberal riding of Papineau in Montreal, federal member of parliament (by which I mean the non-sovereign parliament after the 1982 coup d’état by his father), Justin Trudeau, held a rally to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership.

Press and media, notably the Washington-based Huffington Post, appeared to be aiming at another “Trudeau coronation” like that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968. Huffington hard-sold the inexperienced and unaccomplished 41-year-old Trudeau knock-off the way the father had been sold in 1968: as masculine.

“The story starts with Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau who, as your newspaper has told you, is irresistibly charmant. By now you know that those admitted to his presence leave forever enchanté. His wit is like champagne, his learning immense. He adores pretty girls. They adore him. His overpowering masculinity may well destroy the Women’s Liberation Front.”

Again, in 2012, as in ’68, all question of the Trudeaus’ support of Communism was either stifled by the press ignoring it, or countered in advance by unexpected apologists. Stang records the bizarre press-laundering of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Communist views and background in his 1968 run for the Prime Minister’s Office:

Early in 1968, Pierre announced his availability. Mike [Soviet agent and prime minister, Lester Pearson] dropped the word that Pierre was his choice. And suddenly, with the precision of the New York Philharmonic, the Canadian Press began to sell Pierre to the people. His Communist record was simply ignored. Attempts to discuss it were branded as “hate.” Canadian women read instead about his intense masculinity. So blatant was the blackoutof Pierre’s Communist background that the Calgary Herald refused an anti-Trudeau ad composed of passages from his own writings. The Toronto Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star also refused ads to detail his Communist background. And so complete has been the blackout that in January, 1971, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservatives — who correspond roughly to our Republicans — demanded an investigation of the government-ownedC.B.C. network.

According to Stang, there were “notable exceptions” to the 1968 media blackout of Pierre Trudeau’s blatant Communism. Among them were “Peter Worthington and Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram”.

Sad to say, Peter Worthington – who, during Justin Trudeau’s 2013 Liberal leadership campaign was a vigorous 86 year-old-blogger with the Toronto Sun – has been crossed off the list of “exceptions” to the flagrant media cover-up of the pro-Communist Trudeaus.

Sadder still, Worthington became not merely a Trudeau apologist, but a willful subverter, concealing by silence as to the facts, Pierre’s forced march of Canada into North American Soviet Union under an incoming Red World Order. In this way, Worthington cleared the path for Justin to the Canadian Throne.

In the February 26, 2013, Toronto Sun, Worthington baldly declares (without proving it) that so-called “Liberal” Justin, who was then running for the Liberal leadership, is not the (Communist) that Worthington had presumed his father was [Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Worthington went further:

“It wasn’t Pierre Trudeau’s flamboyant style that was offensive to people like me, it was his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions and potentially damaging to the country.” [Emphasis added.]

Trudeau didn’t like the military, ducked serving in the Second World War and instead mocked it as a youth of military age. He aligned himself with Marxists, attended a post-war, Soviet-sponsored, so-called economic conference in Moscow for fellow travellers, and then falsely claimed he’d thrown snowballs at Stalin’s statue (in April). [More emphasis.]

(That latter story is the source of the domain name, NoSnowinMoscow.com.)

He revered Mao Tse-tung (now called Mao Zedong), admired Castro, felt the KGB was similar to the RCMP, and he seemed to reject the overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union was obsessed with world domination and with subverting democracies.

Worthington says the “economic conference” in Moscow in 1952 was “Soviet sponsored”. He says Trudeau merely “attended” that conference as a “fellow traveller”. Anti-communist Alan Stang in 1971 is more clear. Stang revealed that Trudeau led a Communist delegation at Moscow, all expenses paid by Canadian Communist Party nickel. Quebec historian Robert Rumilly has colorfully dubbed Pierre a “pilgrim of Moscow“.

“Pierre apparently had developed a taste for leading delegations to Communist countries. In 1960 he led another — to Communist China. He participated in a Communist “victory celebration.” He met his idol, Mao Tse-tung. He collaborated on a book called Two Innocents In Red China. (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1968.)”

There is a big difference between being a “fellow traveller”, or a curious inquirer, and in fact leading Communist delegations at Moscow and in newly conquered Red China.

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

Pierre Merely “admired Castro”?

The entire Trudeau family adopted Cuba’s Red Butcher as their “faithful friend”. The entire Trudeau family are Red shills and useful idiots.

“The Last Days of the Patriarch” by Alexandre Trudeau illustrates the intimate, bizarre relationship of the whole Trudeau clan with a Communist dictator. Justin’s brother, Alexandre, unselfconsciously reveals the depth and effects of that relationship in his heart-felt elegy in 2006 to Castro which he penned in English for Peter Worthington’s own Toronto Sun, and in French for La Presse.

The occasion was the birthday of dictator, Fidel Castro, who had turned 80 and transferred his responsibilities to his brother, Vice-President Raúl Castro. (Raúl assumed the full presidency in 2008.)

The personal friendship of Pierre Trudeau and of his wife and three sons with Fidel Castro, is politically problematic. What, precisely, was the effect on Justin Trudeau of this close personal family relationship with Castro?

One son (the late Micha) was a personal favorite of Castro’s; the other son — Alexandre — is clearly under the Castro spell. The mother who raised her sons to adore Fidel, had herself declared that Castro was the ‘sexiest man alive’. Add to this that the mother’s mental instability is well known.

Alexandre’s 2006 article is not only remarkable for its lack of normal moral discernment, but for the apparently thorough Communist brainwashing of its author that it reveals. Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of the author’s brother, the Liberal candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming October 2015 (de facto) federal elections, Justin Trudeau.

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Raised in the same environment, with the same special Cuban friend, by two parents who uncritically adored Castro, Justin — a man with no particular accomplishments but his ability to spend his father’s money — would like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

To that end, in the February 26, 2013 Toronto Sun, journalist Peter Worthington concluded, while offering no proof:

“Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Further on, Worthington finishes: “The fact that Justin is likely to be Liberal leader come April 14 (2013) reflects poorly on the lack of potential leaders in that party. But the country already knows that!”

Worthington says that Pierre Trudeau was only “potentially damaging” to Canada. He thus ignores a mountain of discoverable facts which indicate that Prime Minister Justin would scale the Canadian heights in time to complete his father’s work of destroying Canada culturally, politically, and constitutionally for Pierre’s goal of a regional union under a one-world government.

Fact #1: Secession is a Communist tool for restructuring power in target countries

Pierre Trudeau in fact led the preparations for the 1980 Quebec referendum to “secede” from the Prime Minister’s Office, with his Communist pal, René Lévesque, stepping in tune. (The “secession” of Quebec was intended to facilitate the Communist restructuring of all of Canada by “negotiation” of Communist Lévesque with Communist Trudeau – two Red moles working together at two different levels where each had seized government outside the law, as will be clear below.)

Sshhhh!

This is not secret information. In the multi-volume set, Reports on Separatism1, hard-bound in university libraries, we read that in 1977:

“The overriding theme of the speech was a call for Quebec to come to a final decision now, after 20 years of uncertainty about its national identity. “The choice must be definitive and final. If the referendum is lost, it should not be reopened for 15 years,” Mr. Trudeau said.

“It’s not only exciting, it’s a challenge,” he said. “What is not possible is to constantly remain indecisive, to constantly be afraid to make a choice because then others will make it for us.

“Let us demand of our provincial politicians, and of our federal politicians, that the choices be put before us soon, very soon.”

There are no “choices”. The Constitution forbids “choices” and establishes permanent unity in Canada (more clear below in regard to the Long Title, Crown, etc. of the Constitution).

“we have failed to mobilize adequately the full support of our electorates for the construction of a new world order.”

New World Order is Communist terminology.

At page 4904, speaking of René Lévesque’s veiled Communist Parti Québécois – which had seized power “democratically” (but nonetheless subversively, its very platform of secession negating and proving the invalidity of every last oath among these Red usurpers in the Quebec Legislature) Trudeau tells America and the world:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

“I can command”: this Communist infiltrator placed himself above the Constitution of Canada, claiming unlimited, arbitrary power to destroy it. Indeed, in 1982, he took major step one, towards doing so. Read: Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution. A fellow conspirator of Trudeau’s publicly confesses in a pair of Cronkite Lectures that the so-called “patriation” was not legal, but a coup d’état.

In other words, Communist Pierre was “confident” that Canada would be restructured after a “Yes” in the upcoming 1980 unlawful, unconstitutional, impossible referendum to “secede”.

The notion of a Planhas been tossed around in Quebec. Since 1961, in one form or another, the elaboration of a development plan remained an objective for successive governments, except for the last which finally abandoned the idea. One can just as well understand the initial infatuation with planning as the disenchantment which followed.

Secondly, the manifesto explains the demand of these veiled Communists for the “sovereignty” of Quebec: (all the powers to construct a plan):

What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study, presented more or less well, but rigorously platonic. The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty. As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile, or at worst, a fairly cheap way to neutralize a growing desire for participation.

If you thought Quebec was trying to secede to protect French-Canadian language, culture and ethnicity, you were wrong. The self-serving Reds, however, have used that fiction as their battle-cry in a bid to destroy Canada for Communism.

Summary: the reason for the “secession” of Quebec is to seize the powers of the Parliament of Canada, to use them in constructing a communist PLAN.

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com) 2

Yet, here we have Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1977 Congressional Recordpublicly assuring the world that Canada will, indeed, be “restructured,” supposedly to save its “unity”. The supposition being not that there is a provincial “power” to “secede”, but that in blatant defiance of the clear constitutional denial of such a power to both levels of government – a denial of secession, a denial of a federal power to allow it – the act will be consummated nonetheless on the backs of the electorate, conscripted to vote “democratically”, thus allowing the Reds to dismantle Canada.

Said Trudeau in the same Congressional Record:

Problems of this magnitude cannot be wished away. They can be solved, however, by the institutions we have created for our own governance. Those institutions belong to all Canadians, to me as a Quebecker as much as to my fellow citizens from the other provinces. And because those institutions are democratically structured, because their members are freely elected, they are capable of reflecting changes and of responding to the popular will.

Slight correction to Prime Minister Trudeau: the “members” of provincial and federal legislatures are not in office simply by means of the popular vote, i.e., “freely elected”. The “democratic” vote is not sufficient to show a Member to his seat. No duly “elected” Member can sit and vote laws in Parliament or in a Province without a valid oath of allegiance:

128. Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shallbefore taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some other Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.
Source: The British North America Act, 1867; 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

Nor is the oath of allegiance a “technicality”, as Marxist-Leninist Maoist Gilles Duceppe, for one, alleged while publicly washing his hands of it in a ceremony at Hull, Quebec, in 1990. In the United Kingdom – whence Canada’s Constitution comes –

Wharton’s is a reference cited by the judiciary in court adjudications. And look who’s being punished with “penal servitude”! The person foolish enough to depose (swear in) an obvious liar, because it makes that person and the government a party to perjury.

A false oath is perjury. This legal and constitutional fact, that some people cannot be sworn in, was evidenced by precedent in the British case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 7 Q. B. D. 38. The British House of Commons quite correctly refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh, who had been “democratically” elected, to take the oath, because he manifestly could not take it, his being in conflict with the law of that time.

On the first day of the session of 1883, the British Attorney-General gave notice of a Bill to amend the The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, 29 Vict. c. 19 to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be sworn by making an affirmation of allegiance. But on 3 May 1883, that bill was rejected by the Commons by three votes. An Oaths Act entitling persons who professed no religious beliefs, or who even might be atheists, to be sworn by solemn affirmation, was finally passed in 1888 (51 & 52 Vic c 46).

Can anyone tell us when the constitutional oath of allegiance in the Fifth Schedule to the British North America Act, 1867, was amended to allow Communists to sit and vote laws for Canada, when their obvious allegiance is to Moscow? And their publicly stated aim is to dismantle Canada in contempt of the Constitution?

The unlawful seizure of a government, by swearing in, for example, hordes of people of all political stripes who do not and cannot bear true allegiance, is a form of coup d’état. In such a case, Parliament is not duly constituted. As such, it is not Parliament but some other entity usurping the role. Moreover, the issue is legal, not political.

It is public knowledge that the PQ Reds intend to dismantle Canada; they therefore were lying in 1970 when “sworn in” and again in 1976, and every time thereafter. It is unmistakable from their platform of “secession” and of restructuring Canada, that they seized power in Quebec outside the Constitution.

Trudeau’s collaboration with, and his blatant federal leadership and encouragement of the Communist Parti Québécois set up by him to allow him to dismantle Canada proves that the Government of Canada had been seized outside the law by elite insurgents, themselves under “unlawful oaths”.

They, too, therefore had no right to sit and vote, no right to form a federal government, no right to pass acts in the Parliamentary Legislature of Canada. All their acts are void, because all their oaths are void.

In the La Presse newspaper of Wednesday, 15 August 1990 at page B1 in the National section, in an article entitled “[Translation: Swearing allegiance to the Queen is ‘a technicality’ he (Duceppe) says”]:

“La Presse spoke with an historian from the University of Ottawa who was then the author of a volume on nationalist movements in Quebec. The historian, Mr.Michael Behiels, is reported to have said that the oath presents an obvious conflict for anyone who promotes independence.

“One cannot profess to serve the State while at the same time trying to dismantle the State” said Behiels. “It’s a contradiction.”

Mr. Behiels is right. Moreover, rules of interpretation exist which permit a competent court to show the door to anyone who has presumed to sit and legislate for Canada or a Province without a valid oath. No member of a federal or provincial legislature, no group of such members, nor even an entire legislative assembly composed of traitors, has any constitutional powers beyond those announced in the Constitution. There is no discretion, no privilege, and no inherent power to conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional functions of the legislative and governmental bodies created by the Constitution. All such activity proves void oaths, as grounds to judicially remove these Red usurpers.

It is the OATH which entrenches and protects Parliament and the Constitution.

Communists cannot swear a valid one.

Let’s have another example of the commonplace truth about the legal effect of the oath. In the Indian case of Golak Nath & ors vs. State of Punjab & Anrs, AIR 1967 SC 1643, W.P. No. 153 of 1966, decided on 27-02-1967, AIR 1967 SC 1643, Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for an extended bench, said:

“Parliament today is not the constituent body as the constituent assembly was but a constituted body which must bear true allegianceto the Constitution as by lawestablished.”

In the same case at 1655-1656, Chief Justice Rao said:

“Every institution or political party that functions under the Constitution must accept it: otherwise, it has no place under the Constitution.”

In other words, the oath requires the submission of every elected Member to the Constitution; and thus to the limits on action imposed by the Constitution.

Consequently, the Parti Québécois “has no place under the Constitution” of Canada.

Neither have the pro-Soviet Liberals, the Red Greens, the “Progressive” Conservatives, the Marxist NDP, the Bloc (federal counterpart of the Communist Parti Québécois), the CAQ or any of the half-dozen other socialist and “separatist” parties that now clutter the federal and provincial hustings. Because they all support either dismantling Canada for Quebec “independence” (Communism), and/or merging Canada into the North American (Communist) Regional Union — underway, now.

The Constitutional Oath of Allegiance and Limits on Action

In the lawful Constitution of 1867, specific limits on action are levied by the federal-provincial division of powers; and overall limits are imposed with respect to the statutory purpose of Confederation. These overall limits are blatantly evident in the Long Title of the British North America Act, 1867, and in the interpretive Preamble. The Long Title of an act, including the Constitution, is used to determine the statute’s purpose, so that courts rule in accordance. Canada’s Long Title, similar to the famed “supremacy clause” at Article VI of the US Constitution. reads as follows:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposesconnected therewith

“THIS UNION”, not any other UNION, nor DISUNION, is what the Long Title says.

“The British North America Act, 1867” is merely the short title of the Constitution; whereas the Long Title embodies clear legal restraints: no “purpose” contrary to the Union established in 1867, i.e., not “connected therewith,” can be lawfully entertained by either federal or provincial governments.

The Long Title excludes expressly all activity contrary to the Union created in 1867. To be precise, two things in particular are excluded by the British North American Union: secession of any part of Canada, and annexation of Canada into a differentunion.

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada

Yet, for decades, Canadians have been caught in a straight jacket outside the lawful Constitution by one de facto government after another since Trudeau. All of them are allowing, authorizing, and organizing campaigns for referendums by the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada east-west; while purporting to sign “treaties” such as NAFTA, designed to “deep integrate” Canada into the USA and Mexico, north-south, obviously forming a regional union.

The Long Title of 1867 is confirmed by the “Declaration of Union” (a statutory declaration is a statement of effective law) at section 3 of the Constitution:

“3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.”

Our interpretive preamble of 1867 was often called in aid, correctly, by our perceptive judiciary. (But, that was long before the Soviet invasion of our institutions.) The opening paragraph of the Preamble states:

“WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”

The United Kingdom’s Constitution is unitary. The United Kingdom is a unitary state. The British Crown shared with Canada is unitary. Kingship in the British Constitution on which ours is based is unitary. Therefore, in 1867, a unique merger of two leading systems took place, and in consequence: a unitary Crown reigns above an indivisible (unitary) federal state in Canada. This is not an accident; it was planned that way by the statesmen who founded Canada.

“the Committee encouraged René Lévesque and his sympathisers within and outside the Liberal Party of Québec to set up a distinct party, which would be soundly defeated in an electoral showdown.”

“Electoral showdown” obviously means referendum, the tool that has been used by the Parti Québécois from the time of its full usurpation under false oaths of the powers of government in Quebec.

Frénette, cited again by Lisée in the same interview, identified three members of the “Committee” that urged Lévesque to set up the Parti Québécois, whose 1972 manifesto (sidebar) clearly reveals it to be a Communist party. Said Frénette:

“Within the [federal] Liberal Party – a secret committee has been established in order to undo separatism. The Committee, which includes federal ministers from Québec such as [Jean] Marchand, [Pierre Elliott] Trudeau and [Maurice] Sauvé, has adopted a multi-volleyed plan which for the moment is working as anticipated.” Before being recruited by Paul Desmarais, Frénette was the assistant to Minister Sauvé.

Pay attention! Their “multi-volleyed plan” to “undo separatism” was to CREATE A COMMUNIST PARTY which would hold repeated public votes to DESTROY CANADA.

If Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not a Communist, and if, as Worthington indemnifies in the Toronto Sun in 2013, Trudeau did not “damage” Canada, then how did Red Mole Pierre happen to sit on a secret Committee advocating the set-up of a COMMUNIST PARTY in Quebec whose mandate was and is today to dismantle Canada for refederation on the model of the New European Soviet forming across the Atlantic?

This RED REGION in place of Confederation is what Communist Trudeau means when he tells the Jimmy Carter Congress in 1977:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

That is the FRAUD being sold to Canadians as maintaining “Canadian unity“: refederation as a “compromise” after a “Yes” in a referendum conducted by the Communist Parti Québécois, launched by Communist Lévesque in 1968 on orders of Red Mole Trudeau and his Communist friends on the secret committee of Power Corporation.

North AmericanSoviet Union

Reisman, who, along with his colleagues all have hijacked the federal Parliament, thus acknowledges precisely what the Parti Quebecois is really planning. Not “secession”, but secession as a tool to refederate Canada on the Red European Prototype. The only reason for the initial “secession” is to create international personality for the Province, enabling it to harness the “rest of Canada” into treaties modeled on those used to merge Europe, and necessary to form this top-most part of the North American Soviet Union. A treaty cannot be signed without a national existence, which alone confers a treaty power.

The conclusion is inescapable that the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 were initiated not by life-long Communist René Lévesque – who is nothing but a tool and a front man – but by Communist agent Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fellow Federal Reds.

Fact #3: The North American Union is modeled on the European Community Formula used by Trudeau-Marchand-Sauvé-Lévesque and Power Corporation to set up a Communist state of Quebec linked to Canada

When Gorbachev visited London briefly, for a day, on the 23rd of March, 2000 – and, during that visit he made a statement which – I repeat it at every opportunity – he acknowledged and stated that the European Union is the “New European Soviet”; and I quote.

The organism under construction in North America via “trade” deals and the post-9/11 SPP is a North American equivalent of the “New European Soviet“.

The “North American Union”, called also the “North American Community”, has its direct precursor is the “Canadian Union”, also called the “Canadian Community”, aimed at by the Communist Parti Québécois and planned years before the latter’s founding.

This aim is clear from a public statement of René Lévesque conveyed by a Montreal Gazette reporter in December 1964, one month after Lévesque had appeared on CBC French television calling for the “fundamental” “RESTRUCTURING … of this whole country we call Canada“.

“This country, which could be calledThe Canadian Union“

In audio Episode 5 of “Du PLQ au PQ” (Translation: From the Quebec Liberal Party to the Parti Québécois), Montreal Gazette reporter, Robert McKenzie, told Radio-Canada:

[Translation:] “I received a call from someone: ‘Go to the Liberal Party meeting in Lévesque’s riding tonight (18 September 1967), something major will happen, he’s going to take a stand.” I arrive. There are about 300 people. … I looked at the text for a long time, and finally, he (René Lévesque) concluded with these words:

“This country which could be called The Canadian Union.

It finished just like that: “which could be called The Canadian Union.”

The text McKenzie was reading was possibly Lévesque’s manifesto entitled Pour un Québec souverain dans une nouvelle union canadienne (Translation: For A Sovereign Quebec in a New Canadian Union).

Levesque’s 1967 demand for a new “Canadian Union” precedes the formation of the European Union by approximately fifteen years. The European Union began as a Coal and Steel “Community”, which became an “Economic Community”. The nations of Europe were once independent. They were not federal. Canada is federal. The aim appears to have been to push federal Canada directly into the “EU” stage by “negotiation” following a “Yes” in a referendum. Certainly, the night before the illegal 1980 referendum, Pierre Trudeau offered this to Lévesque3; and therefore, the Red negotiations would not have been for less than this: a full-blown Red refederation of Canada with an EU-style politburo on the Soviet model where unelected bureaucrats, beyond dismissal by the electorate, make most of the laws for the formerly sovereign European nations.

“not only associate states but even—do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Throughout the day René Lévesque had not intervened in the debate, saving his speech to the end. […]

“We have, for all intents and purposes, gone back to our roots,” he said. That is to say that we are still, as we have been since the begining, sovereignists, but with the realism that the special situation that history and geography have made in Quebec demands. It is not for nothing that from the beginning, seventeen years ago, we evoked not only associate states, but evennbsp;– do you remember, a sort of newCanadian community.” [Emphases added.]

Building A North American Community (BANC) — Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Lévesque invoked not only the term “associate states” (origin of the term “Sovereignty Association”) and referring to the European Economic Community (EEC), but also both the “Canadian Union” and the “Canadian Community“. Community is therefore not a mere synonym for Union.

What did the word “Community” mean to Communist René Lévesque, selected by a secret committee of “Liberals” at Power Corporation in 1967 (including Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to organize and lead the veiled Communist Parti Québécois?

In the French book, René Lévesque, un enfant du siècle (1922-1960), a biography of René Lévesque byPierre Godin, published by Boréal on 15 November 1994 [ISBN 9782890526419], we learn at page 80 that René Lévesque signed his own name under his father’s name on the top right corner of the cover of a book annotated by his father (who was a Communist). René Lévesque, we are told, will always retain certain of these annotations, chief among them:

“Do not confuse physical freedom with moral freedom. One has the physical freedom to do evil.” — “To equality of capacity, equality of right.” — Community, i.e., all people taken together. Communism does not admit civil authority.”

The notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat (all people governing together) is an impractical fantasy. But, for René Lévesque, all people taken together were a “Community” which, for him, represented Communism, which defies constituted authority. Therefore, when he spoke of a “Canadian Community” formed within a new “Canadian Union“, Lévesque had to mean a Communist Community; which is proved by the fact that the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois is Communist. Read my exclusive English translation of the CBC Radio Roundtable of 1972 discussing the manifesto.

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

Knowing that the Parti Québécois is Communist; and that all its leaders have necessarily been Communist, we therefore know that Pierre-Marc Johnson, who succeeded Lévesque as leader of the Parti Québécois, and who occupied the office of Premier of Quebec, was therefore also a Communist. He led a party that sought a Communist state of Quebec, and a new “Canadian Community” and a new “Canadian Union“. Pierre-Marc Johnson signed the 2005 plan of the corporate-fascist Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) sponsored by the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, to form a North American Community comprised of Canada, the USA and Mexico; also known as the North American Union.

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

“But, as a member of Congress, I have seen the massive, powerful groups in Washington at work on a daily basis. And I have seen national groups, in their writings and activities and their memberships and members, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and others, which are working to transfer our national sovereignty into some type of regional government on the road to a global, one-world governmental structure.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is obviously impractical. But the dictatorship of the international bankers and their clients, the multinational corporations apparently is not.

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

All the information on the North American Union was on the table for journalist Peter Worthington for about a decade before he died. And yet, rather than warn us, he kept quiet. And when the Communist father of anti-nationalist Justin Trudeau needed white-washing to assure the rise of the son to finish his father’s work, Worthington ignored the impending termination of Canada initiated by Pierre Trudeau, and exonerated the Communist.

As if Canada is not on the brink of dissolution into a Communist regional union (for which purpose Trudeau himself ordered Lévesque to set up the Communist PQ so that he could “negotiate” with it to dismantle the country.)

His genetic descendent will apparently inherit that opportunity.

Conclusion

And yet, journalist Peter Worthington (you know, one of those people who are supposed to tell us the facts), in 2012, publicly absolved Pierre Elliott Trudeau by declaring that “his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions” were only “potentially damaging to the country”.

In other words, looking back on over four decades of criminal subversion, including:

(a) two divisive and illegal referendums (1980, 1995) whose real purpose was to create a COMMUNIST State of Quebec, and which damaged the economy, cost jobs and sent families flying across the continent to escape the potential aftermath;

(b) the ongoing erosion of Canada instituted by Trudeau’s co-creation of the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada;

(c) and all this while we are now on the brink of the final dismantling for annexation due to Trudeau’s continental “policy” of north-south integration through so-called “trade deals” with Red friends in America such as Red Ronnie (i.e, Communist Ronald Reagan, who was groomed by General Electric, of the infamous Broadway triangle, to merely appear conservative) …

… according to Worthington, no damage whatsoever was done to Canada by our de facto, not de jure, Communist prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

2 We have Communist Voting in Canada. For real. It’s called the Quebec referendums. The Reds call it “democratic”, but the purpose of the vote, a COMMUNIST state of Quebec, has never been mentioned in the QUESTION. And, certainly, the “secession bench” of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 never mentioned it. Isn’t that odd? And it doesn’t come up in the so-called Clarity Act.

And, if you do not eventually vote YES here in Canada, as required, there is always the underlying threat that FLQ-style violence may return. After all, in 1964, René Lévesque was reported in the daily press as having told two different groups of high-school students that if the “rest of Canada” refuses to give Quebec “associate state” status, the children could resort to “guns and dynamite”. So, the guy in the picture with the gun (at left), and the basket piled with YES votes beside the empty NO basket — that’s how we do it here in Canada, too. (In fact, there’s good reason to believe the Communists STUFF the “YES” vote. But that’ll be another post.)

Another important article from the former American Opinion magazine. But first, the 89-year-old Kissinger was recently released from hospital after a brief stay. He has apparently reached the age of people he himself called “useless eaters”.

Henry Kissinger: This Man Is On The Other Side
American Opinion | June 1975 | William P. Hoar

Posted on November 28, 2002 5:39:34 PM by Tailgunner Joe
at the FreeRepublic:

Henry Alfred Kissinger, often pictured by cartoonists in a Superman suit, habitually bites his fingernails. And he has good reason. Americans are at last beginning to realize that the U.S. Secretary of State, and his policies, are anything but pro-American.

Henry A. Kissinger

That conclusion is buttressed by considerable evidence, not the least of which was his successful plan intentionally to abandon South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to Communist takeover. During his tenure as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger has also arranged to recognize the “legitimacy” of the Berlin Wall and of permanent Communist occupation of East Germany. Working behind the scenes he engineered the ouster of Free China from the United Nations, managing to be in Peking during the fateful U.N. vote. He has even attempted, despite overwhelming Congressional and public opposition, to give away the U.S.-owned Panama Canal to a Marxist dictator.

And when the U.S.S.R (which maintains military bases in Cuba) grew tired of subsidizing Castro, Kissinger initiated “reconciliation” with Communist Cuba and proposes to help the Soviets bear their burden there. He supported a boycott of anti-Communist Rhodesia to make America dependent on the Soviets for vital defense supplies, even as he arranged shipment of our latest technology to Communist dictatorships from Peking to Moscow, and waived bit/ions of dollars owed us by the Soviet Union.

According to his friend, Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, Henry Kissinger is so completely trusted by Moscow that he negotiated in the Middle East on behalf of the Soviets as well as the United States. Yet he has so alienated both Turkey and Greece as to shake our alliances and threaten us with loss of our military bases in those countries. One U.S. air base in Greece is already scheduled to be closed, and Greece has withdrawn from the military arm of N.A.T.O. Kissinger has even underwritten the Communist-dominated military dictatorship in Portugal, now a Trojan horse within the N.A.T.O. alliance, despite the heavy and obvious interference there of the Soviet K.G.B. And, of course, through his SALT agreements, Henry Kissinger has guaranteed the Soviets a strategic military superiority and deprived us of an effective anti-missile system to protect us from nuclear attack, even as he arranged to strengthen Soviet military capacity through massive credits at giveaway rates of interest.

In view of such a record one is not surprised to find that Henry A. Kissinger was years ago identified as a K.G.B. undercover agent, code-named Bor, assigned to a Soviet spy ring called ODRA. Our intelligence agencies were briefed on this as long ago as 1961 by an important anti-Communist who had for years operated behind the Iron Curtain at a high level of Communist intelligence and personally saw Kissinger’s K.G.B. dossier. The source of this information supplied data resulting in the exposure and arrest of scores of other K.G.B. agents planted high in the Governments of Britain, Sweden, France, Germany, and Israel. He was formally voted the thanks of the American people in a special Congressional Resolution. Yet his detailed revelations about Kissinger have been buried. And Henry A. Kissinger, who worked with the Reds in Germany after World War II, now runs the U.S. intelligence network from above.*

In fact, aside from his important functions as Secretary of State and head of the National Security Council, Kissinger also chairs the Intelligence Committee (which sets policy for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, etc.); the Defense Program Review Committee; the Washington Special Action Group; the Verification Panel in the White House; all covert intelligence operations under the control of the “40 Committee”; and, the Net Assessment Group. Bluntly put, there is not only a fox in the chicken coop but he has been put in charge of security on the farm.

Before Henry Kissinger began to play at intelligence games his highest ambition was to be an accountant in New York City. But that wouldn’t do for an agent Bor. Sent to Harvard for training, he was soon being moved through the Eastern Establishment by the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relations until he was advising Presidents in both major parties. The Rockefellers had arranged a $28,000 grant for him. The C.I.A. had funded his International Seminar at Harvard, where he founded Confluence magazine-which came under Defense Department scrutiny for its pro-Communist bias. He had been made a Director of Special Studies for both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations. The conspiratorial and elitist C.F.R., says Kissinger biographer and friend Stephen Graubard, had given “confidence and encouragement to an awkward and lonely individual….” (Kissinger: Portrait Of A Mind, New York, Norton, 1973.)

It was in 1957 that the C.F.R. arranged for Kissinger to write Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy, a volume declaring that “all-out war has . . . ceased to be a meaningful instrument of policy.” His ideas on limited war appealed to “Liberals” anxious to involve us in the brewing war in Vietnam, but Conservatives were reassured that the author believed any Soviet version of “peace” meant the triumph of Communism throughout the world, and that Moscow saw “peaceful coexistence” as the “best means to subvert the existing structure by means other than all-out war.” The Soviet leaders, wrote Kissinger, “have advanced variations of the same disarmament proposals since the mid-20’s.” In fact, Dr. Kissinger noted the popularity of anti-Communism and declared that “it is futile to deal with a revolutionary power by ‘ordinary’ diplomatic methods.” Stephen Graubard points out that Henry Kissinger later decided that one could deal with the Reds because Peking and Moscow had in his eyes ceased to be “revolutionary” states.

In any event, despite its turgid prose, Kissinger’s first book for the C.F.R. was promoted heavily, made the best-seller lists, and was a Book-of-the-Month selection. The man identified as agent Bor was up with the big boys now, and was soon attending meetings with Communists at the Pugwash Conferences, funded by Cyrus Eaton, the millionaire former secretary to John D. Rockefeller who has long supported Communist interests. Ralph Blumenfeld reports that “Kissinger used to lobby strenuously each year at the Pugwash Conferences of scientists and philosophers, urging East European officials to get their intellectuals” to his International Seminar at Harvard. (Henry Kissinger: The Private And Public Story, New York, Signet, 1974.)

By the mid-Sixties, Dr. Kissinger was wafting another volume for the Council on Foreign Relations, this one entitled The Troubled Partnership, which called for a merger of our country with the socialist nations of Europe as part of what he called the Grand Design. “In moving from alliance to community,” wrote the man who would become Secretary of State, “the United States will not long be able to evade the issue of how much of its freedom of action it is prepared to give up.” There was also a related appeal to surrender our sovereignty because of threatening Communism, which was at the time on one of its periodic “peace offensives.” Feigning anxiety, Kissinger correctly noted: “On each occasion [since the Bolshevik Revolution] the period of relaxation ended when an opportunity for Communism presented itself.” So we should give up sovereignty before it is taken away from us.

Most of The Troubled Partnership argued for what amounts to the end of the United States as an independent power. “No final solution,” wrote the refugee from Nazi Germany, “is possible so long as the [Atlantic] Alliance remains composed of sovereign states.” An end to the sovereignty of the United States of America was to be part of the Grand Design, a point made repeatedly by the Harvard professor:

… institutions based on present concepts of national sovereignty are not enough The West requires a larger goal: the constitution of an Atlantic Commonwealth…. Clearly, it will not come quickly; many intermediate stages must be traversed before it can be reached. It is not too early, however, to prepare ourselves for this step beyond the nation-state.

One of these “intermediate stages” is now being reached in Western Europe. And, according to U.S. News & World Report for May 5, 1975, Dr. Kissinger “is saying in private that ‘all of Europe will go Marxist within 10 years.’ ” His “concern” over this likelihood is purest tartuffery. Kissinger knows very well that Atlantic Union, which he has long supported as a “Liberal” goal, is meant to be a Marxist partnership leading toward merger with the Soviets. It is an objective that Henry Kissinger has for decades shared with Nelson Rockefeller, whom he served as policy advisor, receiving fifty thousand dollars from the New York governor as a token of gratitude when Henry went to work for President Nixon.

Kissinger was said to have wept in disappointment when Nelson Rockefeller was denied the Republican nomination in 1968, but despite his open contempt for Nixon, Kissinger joined his White House staff to help with the Grand Design. Even after the Soviet tanks rolled into Czecho-Slovakia in 1968 to impose the Brezhnev Doctrine with blood and iron, “Kissinger remained committed to the ideas he had developed for Rockefeller,” declares Stephen Graubard, a fellow member of the C.F.R. “His concern was with a ‘creative world order’; that presupposed improved Soviet-American relations.” One consequence of this was the surrender of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Henry Kissinger’s Vietnam “solution” was no surprise. Pentagon Papernapper Daniel Ellsberg, of the C.F.R., has declared: “Kissinger had an attitude in 1968 that made him look far more liberal than anyone in government. Literally no public figure had come out for unilateral military withdrawal. Kissinger was saying fairly early that what you wanted was a facade or delay before the Communists took over.” (David Landau, Kissinger: The Uses Of Power, New York, Crowell, 1972.)

In fact, it was Henry Kissinger’s belief as far back as 1957 that, in modem limited wars, we must explain our strategy to the other side lest they become suspicious that we will escalate the conflict and win. Perhaps this was the reason that in 1970 Kissinger reportedly informed the Soviets of the impending invasion of Communist “sanctuaries” in Cambodia. Henry was at the time partying in the Soviet Embassy at a celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Russian dictator V.I. Lenin even as our boys were being betrayed to the Communists in the Cambodian and Vietnamese jungles. Nothing interferes with Henry’s quest for a New World Order. Not even treason.

In negotiating the sellout of South Vietnam, Dr. Kissinger explained that “Hanoi cannot be asked to leave” the Vietcong “to the mercy of Saigon.” So he arranged to leave Saigon to the merciless Vietcong, forcing our allies to accept hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese troops in their territory. Former White House speechwriter William Safire has described Kissinger’s comments while attempting to surrender Saigon. “The big question is,’ Henry said, ‘does the other side want to settle for anything less than total victory? Their demands are absurd: they want us to withdraw and on the way out to overthrow the Saigon Government.’ He brooded about that a minute. ‘If we ever decide to withdraw, it’ll be up to them to overthrow the Saigon Government — not us.'” (Before The Fall, New York, Doubleday, 1975.)

Eventually, of course, South Vietnam was told there could be a quick surrender or a slow surrender. The South Vietnamese attempted to delay their destruction as long as possible. Marvin and Bernard Kalb have related how Kissinger’s aide Alexander Haig (C.F.R.) “arrived in Saigon with a presidential ultimatum: if Thieu persisted in holding out against an agreement, the United States would sign a separate peace with North Vietnam, and all military and economic aid to South Vietnam would be cut off.” (Kissinger, Boston, Little, Brown, 1974.) So President Thieu took Kissinger’s word that Peking and Moscow would curtail their supplies to Hanoi. What followed was Dr. Kissinger’s “decent interval,” with the result that Saigon has been renamed Ho chi Minh City.

And yet Henry Kissinger is still contending that détente is “an imperative.” He has told the Anglo-American Insiders of the Pilgrims Society: “In a world shadowed by the danger of nuclear holocaust there is no rational alternative to the pursuit of relaxation of tensions.” Time magazine picked up on the theme in April, noting: “What’s more, in spite of the recent gains by revolutionary forces around the world, Soviet leaders themselves were showing no signs of losing interest in East-West détente.” Why should they? We provided them with credit terms better than those afforded American citizens, cut-rate grain, the largest truck plant in the world, sophisticated computers, the wherewithal for development of M.I.R.V. missiles, and status as the world’s most powerful military force. And all of this was done by the same Henry Kissinger who has written that “peaceful coexistence,” or détente or whatever the current euphemism, is a Communist “tactical device to overthrow the West at minimum risk.”

So Dr. Kissinger knows very well that helping the Reds now will lead to more aggression later. It is their standard practice, as he pointed out in American Foreign Policy:

There have been at least five periods of peaceful coexistence since the Bolshevik seizure of power, one in each decade of the Soviet state. Each was hailed in the West as ushering in a new era of reconciliation and as signifying the long-awaited final change in Soviet purposes. Each ended with a new period of intransigence….

Make no mistake, the Secretary of State knows what he is doing. But he does it anyway. And the Kissinger surrender policies are moving ahead as fast as he can move them. Before the fall of Saigon, according to U.S. News & World Report for April 28, 1975: “. . . the Ford Administration was considering a proposal to cancel the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan to open the way for a new agreement with Communist China during the President’s visit to Peking later this year. The proposal has been dropped because, to quote a ranking Administration official, ‘we can hardly sell two allies down the river in a single year.’ ”

You might have trouble getting a bet on that in Cambodia right now, where all anti-Communist officers, down to second lieutenant, are being liquidated along with their wives.

Much has been made of the “difference” between the remarks of President Ford and Henry Kissinger concerning the roles of Peking and Moscow in overthrowing South Vietnam. Ford didn’t blame them; Kissinger said “we shall not forget who supplied the arms ….” Yet, even in his “tough” criticism, Henry could not bring himself to mention the U.S.S.R or Red China by name. And, as reported in the Los Angeles Times: “In his criticism of Moscow and Peking, Kissinger was careful to state that the US policy of détente with both capitals is still in effect.” What is a little mass slaughter between future partners in the New World Order?

Labor leader George Meany of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is not among those who are deluding themselves about the planned New World Order. Meany warns: “Everywhere communism is on the march. Everywhere the West is in retreat. Such are the fruits, the bitter fruits, of détente.” Another not blinded by Kissinger’s policies is Dr. Robert Morris, who has just updated his excellent 1955 book, No Wonder We Are Losing (Plano, Texas, University of Plano Press), to include the debacle wrought by Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense and Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State. Dr. Morris writes of the Kissinger reaction in the face of Communist imperialism:

. . . incredible as it seems, our response to this implacable thrust has been to make our preeminent effort in foreign policy the strengthening of world Communism in economic, agricultural and industrial spheres, where it is still weak and poorly structured And we do this even while Brezhnev, after the fashion of Hitler and Mein Kampf, keeps telling us that the present situation of “détente” calls for an “intensification” of the world struggle and more rather than fewer “confrontations.”

Despite such rising criticism, Henry Kissinger persists in pushing the Grand Design – a plan to insure us of the “peace” of the woeful Gulag Archipelago. United Press International reported in April: “Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said Thursday Americans must ‘pay the price of our setbacks in Indochina’ by striving even harder to lead a new world order.” In truth, if Henry Kissinger has his way, we are not going to “lead” the New World Order in anything but sacrifice and appeasement. As Phyllis Schlafly and Admiral Chester Ward observe in Kissinger On The Couch (New Rochelle, Arlington House, 1975): “Only one of the two can survive; the Kissinger policy or the United States of America.” Kissinger is using détente and the SALT agreements to at once strengthen the Soviet Union and mentally and physically disarm the United States. Schlafly and Ward found the evidence is “clear that ‘sufficiency’ did not mean equality, or even near-equality, but was a flexible term to cover a level that is substantially inferior to the Soviet Union.” Based upon their 846 pages of careful documentation the authors (who long had a reputation for opposing conspiracy theories out of hand) conclude:

It is therefore established that [Robert] McNamara, [Paul] Nitze, and Kissinger are all conspirators who secretly plotted to disarm the United States unilaterally; and who were so ruthless and dishonest that they brought the United States down from what Henry Kissinger admitted was “overwhelming” strategic superiority in 1962, to a Kissinger-admitted Soviet advantage in missile throw-weight of 4-to-1 against us, which translates into a 10-to-1 to 20-to-1 superiority over us in missile-deliverable explosive power.

Nor has Kissinger ignored the role of economic pressure in furthering his Grand Design for the New World Order. Here the plan is not only to loot America on credit but to depress America’s standard of living to make possible a Great Merger with the less-developed nations under Communist control. We discussed Kissinger’s international food and energy programs at length in American Opinion for March 1975. Since then, he has announced global, designs for the oil market involving “recycling” of money and a guaranteed minimum price for petroleum-producing countries now facing a glutted market. Columnist Eliot Janeway has noted of the price-floor proposal:

The spectacle of America offering to guarantee a minimum price for oil as a reward for petropiracy conjures up visions of a gunman being begged not to bind and gag his victim until the latter could write him a life-insurance policy.

The recycling system is compared by Janeway to that imposed on the Germans after Versailles, under which Germany was stripped of her wealth, then lent money on her debt (by the U.S.) to be collected in Britain and France. We paid both winners and losers. In time the results – the planned consequences -were runaway inflation, depression, totalitarianism, and war. And every effort is being made by conspirators in our government to keep America from again becoming independent of foreign fuel by pushing ahead with development of our coal and nuclear capacities while virtually stifling development of new oil and gas reserves.

Syndicated columnist Paul Scott reports: “The world-minded Kissinger hopes to use his proposal for an ‘oil price floor’ and offer ‘to sell a large chunk of America’ to the major oil producers to convince them to formalize their support for the ‘new world order.'” It is sort of a perpetual hijacking plan whereby we pay tribute continually to the major petroleum interests,** who are guaranteed a minimum price regardless of supply or demand; they are offered “security” and a piece of the action here in return for their petrodollars; Americans are assured only of a high price for fuel and that the wealth of all but our tax-protected Insiders will be “redistributed” to those with low incomes, domestically and abroad.

International bankers would of course have a field day tending to such a daisy-chain. But the objective is not mere looting for profit. It is much more sinister. Paul Scott warns: “In Kissinger’s opinion the merging of the standards of living is necessary to create the climate in industrial nations like the U.S. and West Germany for support for the formation of a loosely-knit world government. His plan provides for the eventual merging of the Communist and free world systems in the 1980s.” That, after all, is the Grand Design.

Henry Kissinger is supported in managing all of this by an able staff of conspirators who, like him, have ties to both the Communists and the Establishment Insiders. Kissinger brazenly admits approving a number of security risks over the objections of worried officials. The security dossiers of U.S. Ambassadors he sent to anti-Communist Chile and the Republic of China, for instance, contain reports linking both men to the underground Communist apparatus. Our Ambassador to Portugal boasts to the Comrades with whom he is working that America is not a capitalist nation, but well on the way to being a Socialist Welfare State, a development he finds to his liking. Boris Klosson, Kissinger’s top man at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), has not only been identified as a K.G.B. contact but arranged the return of Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald from Moscow despite his known K.G.B. connections- The subsequent assassination of President John Kennedy was coordinated, according to an important defector in Britain, Oleg Adolfovich Lyalin, by the K.G.B.***

Another top Kissinger appointee, Helmut Sonnenfeldt (who was a major culprit in helping the Soviets to pull off the Great Grain Robbery), was caught passing Top Secret information to a foreign power and the F.B.I. recommended prosecution under the espionage statutes. When the House Internal Security Committee took notice of this and other suspicious Kissinger appointees, and began to look into substantiation of the report that Kissinger is himself a K.G.B. agent, the Committee was abolished in a back-room coup by pro-Communist Congressmen.

Then there is Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, Kissinger’s college classmate and a protégé of Kissinger’s man Daniel Ellsberg, whose short tenure as boss of the C.l.A. resulted in the ouster of hundreds of “old-fashioned” anti-Communists unhappy about bunking in with the Reds. Incredibly enough, the Defense Secretary was recently quoted as declaring: “Since a position of strength failed to achieve all the objectives that the United States might set, perhaps we should substitute a position of weakness. It is an interesting thought….” And you wonder why we are losing?

One of his former confidantes, Danielle Hunebelle, has written that Henry Kissinger “was not a dyed-in-the-wool nationalist and did not believe in America’s absolute superiority.” Which is hardly news, in view of Kissinger’s disarmament of the U.S. military and his repeated calls for surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the New World Order. What is surprising is the arrogance of the man identified as Soviet agent Bor. For Kissinger offhandedly boasted to Miss Hunebelle that he could perform the same service in the Soviet Union, “but in the Kremlin I’d be more influenced by Marxism.” This is our modern Vicar of Bray- with the patriotic principles of a parasite looking for a host. “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” says Henry Alfred Kissinger.

The man’s audacity is awesome. He announced recently in the White House: “At times, I believe we have better relations with the Russians and [Red] Chinese than Congress.” Radical as the Congress is, that is probably so. Clark Mollenhoff reports that, angry over Soviet duplicity in matters of trade and emigration, even Senator Adlai Stevenson III has “charged that Kissinger ‘misled the Congress’ into believing there were assurances from top Soviet leaders when he knew there were none. ‘Then, instead of defending the U.S., Secretary Kissinger blamed Congress and defended the Russians,’ Stevenson said. The State Department explanation that Kissinger simply ‘forgot’ to tell Congress was incredible to both conservatives and liberals in the Senate and House. If it was a deliberate deception it was difficult to exaggerate its importance, for it involved the rights of millions of people and billions in trade agreements.”

The point is that when in trouble Kissinger lies, and the “Liberal” press lets him get by with it. Former Presidential aide William Safire, now on the staff of the New York Times and certainly no Right-winger, notes of Kissinger that “intrigue was second nature to him.” Consider the case of his role in initiating the infamous White House wire taps. In Before The Fall, Safire comments on the controversial taps over which Kissinger threatened to resign if not quickly “cleared” by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

The reason why it is logical to assume that the wiretap program had Dr. Kissinger’s enthusiastic support, and why his subsequent protestation of distaste rings false, is the operation of the “dead key.” All telephone calls to Henry Kissinger, except those few from girl friends, were monitored by a relay of stenographers in his outer office. President Nixon knew his calls were being taken down verbatim whenever he spoke to his national security advisor…. Henry Kissinger was deft in beguiling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but he cannot escape history’s judgment of the way he watered the roots of Watergate.

But possible perjury by the Secretary of State didn’t bother Joseph Kraft of the Washington Post, who declared: “While he may have lied, the untruths are matters of little consequence when weighed against his service to the state.” Kraft, who is a member of the C.F.R., went on record as a hypocrite to protect Henry. And the telephone of Joseph Kraft was one of those Henry had tapped. As C.B.S. commentator Jeffrey St. John told a press convention last year: “He has managed to manipulate the press until you reporters have become mere shoeshine boys for Kissinger in Washington.”

A Washington journalist told the New York Post: “He [Kissinger] has the problems of anyone who trades in misrepresentation and duplicity. He can’t let people compare notes and find his lies.” According to a former National Security Council aide: “He’s so pathological he could probably pass a lie [detector] test.” He lies to everyone, say former associates. Perhaps Henry A. Kissinger’s middle initial really stands for Ananias.

Whatever the cause or motivation, the result of Kissinger’s lying to defend his pro-Communist policies has been disaster. He has gone so far, report Admiral Chester Ward and Phyllis Schlafly, as to provide Moscow and Peking with “a commitment by the United States not to oppose Communist ideology and not to oppose expansion of communism. That is not speculation or hypothesis. It is embodied in the Declaration of Principles that Henry Kissinger talked Richard Nixon into signing at the Moscow Summit of ’72.” And that declaration, signed by Nixon and the boss of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, formally announced the official goal as disarmament in favor of a new international order:

The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. regard as the ultimate objective of their efforts the achievement of general and complete disarmament and the establishment of an effective system of international security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, the Soviets are already breaking the SALT agreements. The result is that, by the design of the Secretary of State, we are being unilaterally disarmed in the face of a massive Soviet buildup even as everything possible is being done to keep the American people from discovering what is happening. The so-called SALT agreements approved by “our” Secretary of State are in fact Soviet plans, drawn up in the Kremlin, meant to deny us protection from attack. And the Soviets know, as does everyone else who has taken the trouble to read Kissinger’s 1957 book, Nuclear Weapons And Foreign Policy, that Mr. Kissinger doesn’t believe in massive retaliation after a sneak attack. If the Communists attacked us first, knocking out half our retaliatory force, Kissinger wrote: “Considered purely rationally, there would be little sense in American retaliation.” Yet, under the Kissinger-Schlesinger policy, we are committed to a policy of ignoring advance warning and withholding response to any nuclear attack until our cities or military installations are actually hit. It is clearly a setup to make credible any necessary Soviet nuclear blackmail should Americans grow restless about being goose-stepped into the New World Order. The idea of our having a strategic superiority of force doesn’t ft the plans of those who seek what Walt Rostow called “an end to nationhood.”

As we are moved toward World Government, Marvin Kalb and brother Bernard write that Kissinger “will deal with the devil, if necessary, to come Up with the right agreement.” He is said to prefer “injustice” to “disorder”; and, though there would be great injustice, there would certainly be a great deal of order in a world slave state. Under the New World Order, an international elite would run the rest of humanity like robots, and claim to be doing us a favor.

Fortunately, Kissinger is now in trouble with both “Liberals” and Conservatives. Newsday and New York magazine have called for his resignation, as have a number of Conservative leaders. In the wake of his Vietnam sellout, Congressman Lawrence McDonald has demanded that Kissinger return his Nobel Peace Prize. Former U.S. Ambassador William Pawley declares: “He scares me to death.” And even John Roche, former head of the Americans for Democratic Action, is concerned-noting that every matter of American interest Kissinger gets “involved in suddenly becomes ambiguous.”

Senator Jesse Helms, who voted against Kissinger’s nomination as Secretary of State, is among those who are infuriated over Henry Kissinger’s plan to bypass the Congress and turn over de facto sovereignty of our vital Panama Canal to the local dictatorship. The Republican Senator angrily asks:

What is Mr. Kissinger up to? What meat does this self-appointed Caesar eat? This Senator is sick and tired of it. Let the press heap upon this man all the flattery and all the praise, but I want to know where his successes are. Henry Kissinger is like the emperor who has no clothes. Only one little boy stood and said, “I don ‘t see any clothes. ” And I do not see the successes of Henry Kissinger.

In the matter to which I am referring, clearly the proposed actions… are in direct opposition of the expressed opinions of a sizable bloc of Members of this body. I believe that any effort that the executive branch may take to arrogate to itself the rights provided in the Constitution to the Senate and the House of Representatives could lead to one of the most serious constitutional crises which our country has faced in the 20th century. I doubt very much that a majority of our colleagues in this Senate would tolerate such an arrogation of power by the executive branch, depriving Congress of its constitutional rights in a matter involving sovereignty over territories of the United States.

No doubt Henry Kissinger was greatly amused. The New York Times Magazine of October 28, 1973, quotes him as remarking: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” These who take Kissinger’s “jokes” lightly do so at their own risk.

In early April, New Hampshire’s Governor Meldrim Thomson delivered an angry speech before the California Republican Assembly calling Henry Kissinger the “cunning architect of America’s planned destruction” and declaring that he should be discharged immediately.

Governor Thomson was on target with his observation that “Kissinger, the protégé and beneficiary of the largess of Vice President Rockefeller, stands for everything that George Washington abhorred and warned against – compromise, duplicity with foreign nations, and unpreparedness for a war of survival. America will never be safe as long as Kissinger is Secretary of State.”

Yet Kissinger’s plans for a New World Order are moving ahead. A proposal was recently presented to the Council on Foreign Relations by the head of the international Trilateral Commission to center “energetic supra-departmental integration of our global policy” in the office of Vice President Rockefeller. Henry Kissinger and the C.F.R. Insiders are much too close to their goal for comfort.

William Safire reports that Henry and top Communists frequently joke about secret police tactics and slave camps in Siberia. It is no laughing matter when Kissinger is consulting regularly with Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, the top K.G.B. officer in the United States and first member of the Soviet politburo to maintain residence outside of the Soviet Union. Comrade Dobrynin has even presented the man identified as K.G.B. agent Bor with a photo of a bulldog, which Kissinger hung on his White House wall. The top K.G.B. officer inscribed the photo: “Henry, don’t be too serious. Take it easy. Relax. Anatol.” But Henry Kissinger cannot relax. To be exposed is to be destroyed. So he plays at secrecy, telling reporters: “No, I won’t tell you what I am. I’ll never tell anyone.”

One understands why. But to understand is not enough. To know what Henry Kissinger is up to, and to fail actively to seek his immediate resignation, is not tacit acquiescence in error but countenance of treason.

Henry Kissinger was identified in 1961 by a top anti-Communist operative who had risen to the rank of colonel-general in Communist intelligence as a member of a secret R.G.B. ring, known a, ODRA, that was in place inside U.S. Army intelligence. Kissinger had been working with the Communists in post-war Germany under the code name of Bor. Although his highest previous ambition had been to become an accountant he was moved on to Harvard where his K.G.B. file showed him to be maintaining contact with the C.I.A. The man identified as agent Bor was soon provided with a $28,000 Rockefeller grant, his seminar was financed by the C.I.A., he was made a director of studies for both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefellers’ secretive Council on Foreign Relations. The C.F.R. published his books, he acted as personal advisor to Nelson Rockefeller, and he was maneuvered into place under President Nixon as chief of national security and Secretary of State. Trusted by the Communists and by the Establishment Insiders, Kissinger proceeded to support Communist interests in the name of détente, to disarm the United States in the face of a Soviet arms buildup, and to arrange a massive looting of the American economy on credit. All this, he claimed, was in the interest of achieving a New World Order.

* Details of Kissinger’s activities as agent Bor can be found in Frank Capell’s long intelligence monograph, Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent (The Herald Of Freedom, Zarephath, New jersey, 1974, 53.00). As it happens, the investigative staff of the House Internal Security Committee was documenting Capell’s charges when the Committee was suddenly abolished. And Saudi Arabia’s anti-Communist King Faisal had ordered copies of Mr. Capell’s book a scant three weeks before his assassination by a radicalized nephew, said to be “into Marxism” According to Dublin’s authoritative Special Office Brief, the nephew visited the assassination section of the KG.B. in East Germany before the shooting.

**As we go to press, Exxon has just replaced General Motors atop Fortune magazine’s list of the five hundred most powerful U.S. corporations. But the real question is: Will Rockefeller replace Ford?

***Lyalin was the informant whose exposure a few years ago led to the deportation of 105 KG.B. agents from Britain. Dublin’s Special Office Brief reports: “The U.S. Government (under Kissinger’s particular influence) has kept both the Kennedy and Faisal assassination details connected with Department V of the KGB secret. It has been argued that the truth would upset détente. ”

This article, originally published on September 6, 2004, was written by noted Lithuanina-American journalist and author Vilius Brazenas for The New American. A recipient of Lithuania’s highest civilian honor, The Order of the Vytis Cross, Mr. Brazenas was well known as a political analyst, writer, and speaker not only in Lithuania, but also in the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world. Mr. Brazenas passed away in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on October 3rd. He was 97 years old. This article, which is as relevant today as when it was published, is being republished here in his honor.

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen — both American and Lithuanian — about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, “I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal.” On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, “I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world.” He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: “I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a ‘common European home’ finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe….”

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn’t the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d’Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.” In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about.

It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA–FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’etat in the Americas.

The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.'”

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as “integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence.” In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain’s major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. “Twenty years ago, when the process began,” he wrote, “there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press — which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction – from the member states to the central government.

Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens – including terrorists – to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe – much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to “impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable.” That means direct taxes on individuals.

Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional “common market” for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the “ensemble of connections” while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the “new world order” Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU – “integration,” “harmonization,” “convergence” — to describe their “American project.” They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the “new American Soviet.”

I wish to spo– I wish to thank the sponsors for inviting me. I don’t often get invited.

[Laughter.]

This was an important debate. I had planned another closing message, but I feel compelled to say what I’m about to say.

And I risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But, it’s no longer a theory. What I’m about to say is fact. The secret organizations of the world power elite are no longer secret. They have planned and are now leading us into a one-world Communist world government.

The combining of national governments started with the European Union. That union started with trade agreements, then a common currency — the Euro — and now a European parliament that is feverishly passing laws that override the laws of the member nations.

A constiution was drafted, but rejected by a few of those nations. But, never mind. They implemented it anyway.

Now, it’s North America’s turn.

Building on the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA section of the Commerce Department is busy drafting laws and regulations for a North American Union. A union of Canada, America and Mexico.

The President has attended secret meetings and signed at least two agreements under the Security and Prosperity Partnership program. Information leaked out about the meetings, and now it is all in the open.

No treaty has been signed, so Congress has not become involved. However, money from our treasury is now being spent for this effort.

We will have a new currency. The Amero. And a new constitution modeled on the Soviet Union’s constitution. Our rights will not be inalienable, but they will be granted by government, who can also take them away.

One sign that this is our future is plans for the superhighways from southern Mexico, through America and into Canada. These plans are not secret any longer. Huge amounts of property will be taken in the name of Free Trade, peace and security.

You will have a national ID card with a radio frequency chip in it. That’s already law* in America and will be implemented by May 2000. This man voted for it. You will not be able to move about, freely.

This is terrorism of the most worst kind. Brought on you by our own government.

The strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind will be averaged into world communism.

Exclusive to“No Snow in Moscow”

I have obtained an authentic copy of an old draft article by noted journalist Peter Worthington (born February 16, 1927) which contains names of suspected Communists in the federal government of Canada, as revealed in the RCMP’s now-quashed “Featherbed File”.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau squelched the Featherbed file with an Order-in-Council before he left office. Trudeau himself was named in it as a suspected Communist subversive.

Many headlines could be drawn from this article. However, the one that comes to my mind first is that Sol Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA), was a suspected Communist subversive. RCMP Featherbed investigators objected in vain to the renewal of Reisman’s high-level security clearance with the federal government of Canada.

In 1982, Trudeau ordered a royal commission convened: the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, known as the Macdonald Commission, and chaired by Trudeau’s friend and co-Bilderberger, Liberal Minister of Finance, Donald Stovel Macdonald.

The Macdonald Commission reported to Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1985. It recommended free trade with the USA, and the conversion of Canada to a socialist welfare state.

In May of 1986, Canadian and American negotiators began to work out a so-called trade deal, known as the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Canadian team was led by former deputy Minister of Finance Simon Reisman and the American side by Peter O. Murphy, former deputy United States trade representative in Geneva.

The FTA was deepened by the coming into force on January 1, 1994 of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving Canada, the USA and Mexico, and spanning the continent.

A number of informed and well placed observers have identified the NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which followed it on the pretext of so-called terrorist attacks of September 2001, as the building blocks of a North American Union modeled on the European Union. Today, The European Union is called both Marxist and “post-democratic” by some members of the press and intellectuals such as Professor John Fonte.

American Charlotte Iserbyt has warned of an impending North American Soviet Union, citing Mikhail Gorbachev who in 2002 called the European Union the “New European Soviet”.

American-Lithuanian Vilius Bražėnas viewed the series of trade deals on this continent in a similar light. Bražėnas, a survivor of Communism, died on October 3, 2010 at the age of 97. In his final passionate articles, he warned against the FTA, NAFTA, the FTAA and related trade-zone accords as tantamount to a multiple coup-d’état which in the end would impose a Communist regional union in North America.

Former Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, who survived over a decade as a prisoner of Soviet mental hospitals, has warned on video and in print that the European Union is “the old Soviet model in western guise.”

Is anyone listening? I know I am.

U.S. Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, April 1 1935 to September 1, 1983

In particular because U.S. Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald in 1983 publicly warned America that the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Marxist Trilateral Commission and other related non-governmental entities were pushing for a Communist regional union through a series of apparently harmless trade deals.

In the words of Congressman McDonald himself on Crossfire, speaking of the CFR and related circles of elites:

“[T]heir objective is to try to bring about a gradual transition in our society -– a dissolving of sovereignty -– and a moving steadily to the left on the political spectrum.”

Canada’s FTA under Reisman certainly shifts Canada to the left while initiating the North American merger process.

Speaking specifically of the CFR during an interview with Larry McDonald on the television program Crossfire, McDonald said:

”[Y]ou are looking at a group (the CFR et als) that has worked to bring about a dissolution of national sovereignties on the road to world government.”

McDonald then quotes Arthur Schlesinger in the May-June 1947 issue of the Partisan Review:

”He [Schlesinger] said that the objective -– the secret policy of which we can’t tell the American public because they’re not sophisticated enough to see the value — is that through a steady result of erosion of NEW DEALS, we bring the American society steadily to the left, and through a signed concept of benign containment, we merge into the vital center of the socialist left. Those were his words, not mine.”

Congressman McDonald continues further on replying to Crossfire host Pat Buchanan’s question whether the concept of the UN as the basis of a world government is not passé:

”Well, I think there are those who realize that moving straight from a prototype of the United Nations into world government perhaps is tactically impossible. But phasing out increasingly national sovereignty into REGIONAL GOVERNMENT and phasing out sovereignties into international treaties ….” is the order of the day.

Today, with these warnings in mind, I invite you to read Peter Worthington’s old draft article exposing the chief negotiator of the FTA — which forms the initial basis of a clearly incoming REGIONAL UNION in North America — as someone the RCMP had warned the federal government not to trust because he likely was a Communist subversive.

However, the warnings fell on deaf ears, no doubt because the very Prime Minister’s Office the RCMP attempted to alert was itself already infested with one-world government types and suspected Communist subversives such as Soviet agent Lester B. Pearson, and Soviet mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

As a consequence, the very basis of Communist regional union in North America was negotiated by someone Canada’s national police and security apparatus long believed to be a Communist subversive.

Following is an exclusive typed transcript made by me from Worthington’s own typed, draft article, which he hand-edited.

For ease of reading, i am retyping the draft clean, without indicating Mr. Worthington’s deletions and insertions. Images and captions have been added by me.

But the governments of John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau dismissed the Featherbed warnings as unsubstantiated Communist witch-hunting.

Besides, it would have been too embarrassing to repudiate people their governments had promoted to positions of influence.

Featherbed suspected that Communist infiltration of the federal bureaucracy had been set in train in 1923 with the co-option of O.D. Skelton, renowned as the “father of the civil service”.

The Featherbed analysts concluded that over the years, any promising “agents of influence” were talent-spotted at Communist study clubs in universities and brought into the civil service.

Inside, a shadowy network promoted “birds of a feather,” which gave the operation its code-name.

Robert Bryce (1984)

Among the more prominent (civil servant) subjects of Featherbed investigation were Robert Bryce, who rose from the Finance Ministry to the top post as cabinet secretary; his successor as deputy minister of finance, Sol Simon Reisman; and the husband-and-wife team of Bernard and Sylvia Ostry.1

Bernard Ostry, suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Bernard Ostry became deputy minister of communications despite RCMP objections. He was recently appoint(ed) at $65,000 a year as government special adviser on culture and communications based in Paris.

Sylvia Ostry, suspected by the RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Sylvia Ostry, former chief of Statistics Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, and deputy minister of consumer and corporate affairs, was appointed last fall to head the economics and statistics branch of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.

Soviet mole Pierre Trudeau and Soviet espionage agent Lester Pearson

Operation Featherbed also plumbed the pasts of prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau — Trudeau for his travels to Warsaw, Moscow, Peking and Havana, Pearson for allegedly having supplied information while a diplomat, that was transmitted to Moscow by a U.S. spy ring.

(Trudeau once called for his Featherbed file, “chuckled” as he read the report about his travels, associations and indiscretions, and sent it back to RCMP files).

Featherbed began as a search for suspected Communist subversives in the hierarchy of the civil service, branched out delving into university professors, lawyers, the media and trade unions.

It involved extensive surveillance, wiretapping and bugging under the code-name Operation Mercury (Featherbed was the analytical side). The winnowed-down conclusions were summarized in a thick, black-edged book that held the names of 245 “professional” people as members of the Communist Party secret underground in Canada.

Not all the subjects of initial investigation found their way into the wrap-up black book.

Featherbed opened files on 87 CBC staffers as suspected subversives but there was no evidence of any operating network and only a handful were named in the final summation.

Tim Buck, head of the Communist Party in Canada

And Featherbed never learned the identity of “our agent in Canadian Press” that Communist Party of Canada chief Tim Buck frequently boasted about to his mistress, Bess Nascolo. A bug in Nascolo’s house on Jones Ave., Toronto, picked up the drunken boasts after a shipment of Russian embassy vodka.

Featherbed believed that Lewis Rasminsky, former governor of the Bank of Canada, was only flirting with Communism when he attended party cell meetings in the Depression, as many disillusioned people did, and that he had rejected the ideology.

After a Featherbed investigation, the RCMP Security Service blocked the intended 1969 appointment of Grace Hartman to the government’s national commission on the status of women. She became head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Featherbed also conducted an investigation of Shirley Carr, vice-president of the Canadian Labor Congress.

What prompted Featherbed’s start in 1958 was an accusation by the U.S. Senate Internal Sub-Committee that Robert Bryce had been a member of a Communist closed party cell at Harvard university in 1935-37.

Herbert Norman, a known Communist, killed himself rather than expose 70 or more other Soviet agents

The subcommittee the previous year had cited Herbert Norman, then ambassador to Cairo, as a Communist.

Norman leaped to his death in Cairo a day after he told his doctor that if he were called to testify in a royal commission, he would to identify 60 to 70 Canadians as Communists.

Norman was a good friend of Lester Pearson and Robert Bryce and Pearson’s denunciation of U.S. interference in Canadian affairs caused the jittery RCMP brass to sever relations with the FBI.

When they were resumed, the FBI handed the information about the Silvermaster spy ring to the RCMP. The ring’s courier, Elizabeth Bentley, told the FBI that Norman was a source of information sent to Moscow.

John Grierson, suspected but not charged with Soviet espionage (his secretary, Freida Linton, was charged)

She also said that she had reported to her Soviet at spy handlers that Pearson also had been a source of information, along with John Grierson, head of the National Film Board, and his secretary, Freda Linton.

Featherbed was launched with the concept that the Silvermaster ring — which led to the indictments of Alger Hiss, assistant to the U.S. Secretary of State, and Harry Dexter White, a senior official in the U.S. Treasury Department — had its counterpart in Ottawa.

The initial investigation turned up 12 suspected equivalents in the Ottawa civil service hierarchy. The files on the dozen were taken away by W. H. Kelly, director of RCMP Security and Intelligence, and never returned to Featherbed investigators.

After the U.S. subcommittees naming Bryce, he voluntarily went to RCMP headquarters to explain.

He admitted having attended Communist party study cells at Harvard and contended to his RCMP questioners that “you’re making too much of it. I was only flirting with the Communists.”

Featherbed with the help of the FBI investigated his claim but concluded that Bryce had played a greater role in the study cells than he owned up to.

Harold “Kim” Philby, British Secret Service (MI6), in a 1955 file photo

The delving also turned up a class parade photo taken at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the early 1930s. [Sitting] in the front row were Bryce, Lester Pearson, Herbert Norman and Kim Philby.

Philby went on to penetrate and sell out British Intelligence as a Soviet KGB master agent and now lives in Moscow. The picture raised questions but answered none.

RCMP of Operation Mercury put Bryce under surveillance for many months but found nothing incriminating.

The Mercury Mounties wiretapped Simon Reisman for a long time and intercepted phone calls from a Russian embassy military attache identified as “A. Lobatchev.”

The RCMP Watching Service glued on to Reisman but never found him meeting with Lobatchev. However, Featherbed found that Reisman’s wife had attended a Communist party training school in Port Hope, Ont., in 1954.

When Reisman’s top security clearance came up for renewal, the RCMP put in a report that it shouldn’t be renewed. But the government’s security screening panel disagreed.

Bernard Ostry was the subject of RCMP surveillance under the code-name “Apache.” That came after British Intelligence reported in 1962 that Ostry had attended a meeting of the Communist Party of Britain.

The Watching Service reported that Ostry had met Russian Intelligence Service agent Rem Krassilnikov at the Green Gables restaurant in Ottawa.

The RCMP took Bernard Ostry’s file to Trudeau but he dismissed their objections to his promotion to deputy minister of communications, the department that includes intercepting Soviet communications and bugging of embassies.

“I don’t want to hear any more about the Ostrys,” Trudeau said. “I would work with the devil if necessary. Don’t bother me any more about the Ostrys.”

The RCMP had filed objections to Sylvia Ostry’s promotions on the basis of her Communist associations. Trudeau dismissed that, too.

The RCMP could never reveal, even to Trudeau, the source for their objections to the Ostrys.

With Trudeau’s disinterest, Featherbed ground to a listless effort in 1972 and died completely by 1975.

A stroke of luck had uncovered secret Communist party memberships of several higher-ups in the trade union movement and in the civil service.

An RCMP “garbage patrol” picked up the membership list of secret section number seven of the United Jewish People’s Order in Montreal. Section seven was the UJPO’s underground party apparatus for professional people.

Tom Kent, Queen’s University: suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive *

The subject of one Featherbed file, Tom Kent, complained to Pearson that it was unfair. Kent was a policy advisor to the prime minister and assistant deputy minister of immigration.*

Featherbed’s file on Kent outlined his connections with Communist front groups while he was managing editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Professor C. B. Macpherson: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

Of the many university professors in Featherbed’s files, the most important was deemed to be Prof. C. B. MacPherson of University of Toronto.

The RCMP bugged MacPherson’s island cottage near Gananoque for the regular visits by two Russian Intelligence Service officers from the Ottawa embassy.

Kay MacPherson:: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

MacPherson’s wife, Kay, was leader of the Voice of Women movement that paraded for rejection of nuclear weapons by Canada.

Twenty years after Igor Gouzenko defected, Featherbed analysts got around to poring through the neglected kit-bags full of papers seized in the spy-ring roundup.

In the yellowing notebooks and memo pads, they found names and phone numbers of calls made in wartime. Tracing the numbers back to wartime government phone books, they traced calls made to civil servants who by then (1965) had risen high in the bureaucracy.

They also found evidence implicating a wartime RCAF wing commander and an army colonel in the Soviet spy rings. But by then, the trail had gotten too cold. Ironically, the colonel was by then dealing with Soviet trade missions for the government.

Another trail too late to pick up was a curious coincidence that went unexplained.

That was the belated discovery that Col. Nicolai Zabotin’s spy ring had used an electronics shop in Rideau St., Ottawa, as a “live letter drop.”

A card was put in the shop window to signal that a letter was waiting to be picked up. The card’s appearance usually coincided with the visit to the manager’s office at the rear by two middle-rank civil servants.

The pair rose high in the bureaucracy and retired with honors and indexed pensions.

Operation Featherbed folded for lack of government interest.

– 30 –

_____

1 Trudeau himself was feared by the RCMP to be a Communist agent. (Trudeau undoubtedly was one. At Moscow in 1952, Trudeau led a Communist delegation organized by the Canadian Communist Party. The Moscow meeting was an “economic summit” organized by Soviet intelligence. See my exclusive English translations of a 7-part series on the summit, “I’m Back From Moscow,” penned by Trudeau for the leftist daily, Le Devoir. Lester Pearson absolutely was a Soviet agent, denounced by defecting Soviet military intelligence, Elizabeth Bentley to the FBI. However, Worthington soft-pedals the grave accusations of Elizabeth Bentley against Pearson in the McCarran hearings. (In 2012, Worthington, still kicking and alive, soft-pedaled his own accusations against Communist Trudeau of the 1970s and 80s, thus bleaching Pierre’s reputation when Red offspring Justin was running for the “Liberal” leadership. Police suspected Bernard and Sylvia Ostry, as well. Now, grasp this, if you can. According to Don Newman, in his autobiography, xxxxxx, Trudeau routinely held his federal Cabinet meetings at the private palatial home of none other than suspected Communists, Bernard and Sylvia Ostry, straddling the border between Hull, Quebec and Ontario. Also at those meetings was private citizen and Canadian RIIA member, Paul Desmarais Senior of Power Corporation. On the downtown Montreal business premises of Power Corporation in the 1960s, 1967 to be precise in this case, a “Secret Committee” of Reds posing as Liberals in the federal cabinet of Soviet Agent Lester Pearson, came up with a plan to create a “separatist” party. Communist René Lévesque was instructed by them to organize and lead it.

The party;s name? The Parti Québécois. Its 1972 manifesto in French only, written to appease the extreme left members who swelled its ranks in 1968, flowing in from the Communist RIN party that had been disbanded, calls for a Communist independent state of Quebec. (See Free download page for my exclusive English translation of the 1972 manifesto.)

We thus find a major multinational corporation embracing, hosting and harboring obvious Communist infiltrators of the Liberal Party of Canada, setting up plans for a Communist party and a Communist State of Quebec on Power Corporation premises. Power Corporation is also a major presence at the Canadian branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the RIIA in London, an international banker front for a secret society whose object still is the infiltration of national governments to subvert national sovereignty on the road to world government).

* I have come up with a good piece of evidence that Tom Kent was/is indeed a Communist subversive. In March 2007, the Caledon Institute published in pdf format a booklet authored by Kent entitled Federalism Renewed. The section of it entitled “City Limits” declares the Provinces of Canada (Provincial Legislatures) as defunct institutions of the previous Century. Kent recommends replacing our Provincial Legislatures with a new form of “federalism” which bears a strong resemblance to the Communist expanded administrative municipal regions documented in Moscow in 1975 by Maurice (Morris) Zeitlin writing in Communist Workers’ World. I can tell from the same article that Kent also knows why Stephen Harper declared Quebec “a nation” in 2006: precisely to disintegrate Canada to use Quebec to “negotiate” Kent’s “new federalism”.

Robert Rumilly:
Two important authors on the communist infiltration of Canada are Alan Stang and Robert Rumilly. Please read my exclusive English translation of two chapters from Rumilly's 1956 book The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada (L'Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français).

ANTICOMMUNIST ARCHIVE & STORIES:

EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois, calling for a Communist State of Quebec
Segments translated so far:

UPDATE 15 August 2016: 100% complete! First English translation of 1972 PQ manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec. This is what we were really "voting" for in 1980 and 1995. There is more text in the PDF download than is posted online in html: https://www.sendspace.com/file/pgg7mg

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec